posted
It's commonly claimed on this forum that the Natufians of Mesolithic Southwest Asia were a black people of African descent. I don't doubt that they may have had African ancestry, but this paper by Trenton Holliday reports that, while the first modern humans to migrate to Southwest Asia from Africa were tropically adapted, their Natufian descendants became cold-adapted. From the paper:
quote:Natufians also exhibit a somewhat cold-adapted physique, albeit not as extreme as the Neandertals.
This challenges the belief that the Natufians were black, for if these people were really tropically adapted like blacks, why don't their limb proportions show it?
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cool Can you also show whether he spoke of Natafians latest hunters, going into the Neolithic period? Or whether he spoke of Natufians from the early Mesolithic?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: It's commonly claimed on this forum that the Natufians of Mesolithic Southwest Asia were a black people of African descent. I don't doubt that they may have had African ancestry, but this paper by Trenton Holliday reports that, while the first modern humans to migrate to Southwest Asia from Africa were tropically adapted, their Natufian descendants became cold-adapted. From the paper:
quote:Natufians also exhibit a somewhat cold-adapted physique, albeit not as extreme as the Neandertals.
This challenges the belief that the Natufians were black, for if these people were really tropically adapted like blacks, why don't their limb proportions show it?
why do you use this phrase "were black" ? The researchers who wrote this paper would never use such an imprecise vague unscientific terminology.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The paper said there were in fact two populations one from Qafzeh-Skhul African like and anotomically modern the other archaic and Neanderthal from Tabun Amud and Kabera. So basically according to the abstract you have tropically adopted folks most likely Africans moving into Neanderthal territory..So what's new ?
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Trentons ''Natufian'' Can't refer to specimens that pre-dated Natufian culture
I don't think it is anything worth diggin into. If it was something significant the other side (Eurocentrics) would have bombarded Egyptsearch with it by now.
There are more lines of evidence substantiating an African migration to Levant.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
If it proved that the Natufians were not African then people like Skeptick, Fraud or some other troll would of posted it a long time ago. It seemed intriguing but I guess it really does not amount to anything much
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
King, You guys are the fraud on the Natufian issue. You came up with the idea that they were black african by pulling one line out of one study and then ignoring all the rest. Truth is we know little about them one way or the other and even less about their influence going forward.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
^Truthcentric, read the thread. Judging by my question to you, apparently you had posed the question before
TRENTON W. HOLLIDAY1. 1Department of Anthropology, Tulane University.
The Epipaleolithic site of Jebel Sahaba (Sudan) was discovered in 1962, ca. 1 km from the east bank of the Nile, and ca. 3 km north of Wadi Halfa (the site is now submerged beneath Lake Nasser/Nubia). From 1962-1966, a total of 58 intentionally-buried skeletons were uncovered at the site. Diagnostic microliths suggestive of the Qadan industry as well as the site’s geology suggest an age of 14 – 12 ka for these burials. In this study, the body proportions of the Jebel Sahaba hominins are compared to those of a large (N =ca. 1100) sample of recent human skeletons from Europe, Africa, and the north circumpolar region, as well as to terminal Pleistocene “Iberomaurusian” skeletons from the northwestern African sites of Afalou (Algeria) and Taforalt (Morocco), and Natufian skeletons from the southern Levantine sites of El Wad and Kebara. Univariate analyses distinguish Jebel Sahaba from European and circumpolar samples, but do not tend to segregate them from North or Sub-Saharan African samples. In contrast, multivariate analyses (PCA, PCO with minimum spanning tree, NJ and UPGMA cluster analyses) indicate that the body shape of the Jebel Sahaba hominins is closest to that of recent Sub-Saharan Africans, and different from that of either the Natufians or the northwest African “Iberomaurusian” samples. Importantly, these results corroborate those of Irish (2000), who, using non-metric dental and osseous oral traits, found that Jebel Sahaba was most similar to recent Sub-Saharan Africans, andmorphologically distinct from their contemporaries in other parts of North Africa. This study was funded in part by NSF (grant number SBR-9321339).
King
Maybe someone is interested in researching whether the type of Natufians described here are the same sample/age described by Brace, Arthur Keith etc as ''Negroid''. Note that Arthur Keith referred to ''negroid'' Natufians from around 5000bc. Brace had earlier samples as he was referring to their latest hunters who were transitioning into the neolithic.
I'll deal with it when it has been demonstrated that the short limbed type pertains to samples described by Brace, Keith, Keita and others.
''Natufian'' is a culture, not a single population
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you are a racist, as most of these afrocentrics are, what you want to do is cherry pick data to spin a position that you think makes your larger point.
-------------------- The tree of liberty is watered by the blood of tyrants. Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: If it was something significant the other side (Eurocentrics) would have bombarded Egyptsearch with it by now.
Actually this finding challenges the Euronuts's claim that light-skinned people from the Levant brought civilization to Egypt, because the Natufians' cold-adapted limb proportions are very different from the tropically adapted ones of the Egyptians. That throws a wrench into the claim that Neolithic Southwest Asians significantly influenced the early Egyptian gene pool.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Maybe someone is interested in researching whether the type of Natufians described here are the same sample/age described by Brace, Arthur Keith etc as ''Negroid''. Note that Arthur Keith referred to ''negroid'' Natufians from around 5000bc. Brace had earlier samples as he was referring to their latest hunters who were transitioning into the neolithic.
I'll deal with it when it has been demonstrated that the short limbed type pertains to samples described by Brace, Keith, Keita and others.
''Natufian'' is a culture, not a single population
Yes this would shed light on this "new" development.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yea, this isn't news, it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts. Btw, note that the Natufian culture is said to have arisen as a result of East Africans (Mushabeans?) moving into southwest Asia and coming together with the indigenous culture there.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Yea, this isn't news, it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts. Btw, note that the Natufian culture is said to have arisen as a result of East Africans (Mushabeans?) moving into southwest Asia and coming together with the indigenous culture there.
Where the hell have you been bro??
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Maybe someone is interested in researching whether the type of Natufians described here are the same sample/age described by Brace, Arthur Keith etc as ''Negroid''. Note that Arthur Keith referred to ''negroid'' Natufians from around 5000bc. Brace had earlier samples as he was referring to their latest hunters who were transitioning into the neolithic.
all of the sudden the term "Negroid" may be worth taken into consideration as valid when it supports your position and you put in quotes to make it seem like "I wouldn't use that word but it's exactly what I mean" lol
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Yea, this isn't news, it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts. Btw, note that the Natufian culture is said to have arisen as a result of East Africans (Mushabeans?) moving into southwest Asia and coming together with the indigenous culture there.
LOL That doesn't even make sense. Natafians who fall in between the Niger Congo speaking sample and Nubians, but who have been admixed to the point have having predominantly Eurasian lineages.
It is in my opinion much more likely that Brace's sample retained their African features dispite being surrounded by Eurasian populations, and that they remained somewhat segregated. Kind of like how near black Morroccans/Algerians have retained their color and features for centuries, despite being surrounded and outnumbered by people who look like the stereotypical north Africans. Brace used words like ''there was a Sub Saharans presence among them'' and ''of almost equal size'', implying he was aware of an Eurasian componant that he didn't use in his 2005 study.
Trenton's vague language (''somewhat'' ''different'') might imply that he lumped in these African proportions with the Eurasian ones to arrive at an ''average'' that failed to cluster with the Wadi Halfans because of the pre-dominant Eurasian componant.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: naturally, they had to adapt to the freezing cold Levant termperatures
Uh huh Is that why you attempt to use these same ''naturally cold adapted'' limb proportions to revise your AE Mulatta theory?
Was the Levant according to you not closer to Egypt than Nubia? How exactly does this work Birdbrain? How have you patched up this hole in your theory, in order to not have to look at the most logical conclusion?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Yea, this isn't news, it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts. Btw, note that the Natufian culture is said to have arisen as a result of East Africans (Mushabeans?) moving into southwest Asia and coming together with the indigenous culture there.
LOL That doesn't even make sense.
What exactly doesn't make sense?
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Natafians who fall in between the Niger Congo speaking sample and Nubians, but who have been admixed to the point have having predominantly Eurasian lineages.
Huh? Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Yea, this isn't news, it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts.
^That didn't make sense to me. Can you establish that the cold adapted limbs found by Trenton relate to Brace's sample that fell in between Niger congo speakers and Nubians? If not, why associate Trentons cold adapted limbs with Brace's sample?
What in my quote exactly caused your confusion?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: naturally, they had to adapt to the freezing cold Levant termperatures
Uh huh Is that why you attempt to use these same ''naturally cold adapted'' limb proportions to revise your AE Mulatta theory?
Was the Levant according to you not closer to Egypt than Nubia? How exactly does this work Birdbrain? How have you patched up this hole in your theory, in order to not have to look at the most logical conclusion?
you didn't get the sarcasm?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: naturally, they had to adapt to the freezing cold Levant termperatures
Uh huh Is that why you attempt to use these same ''naturally cold adapted'' limb proportions to revise your AE Mulatta theory?
Was the Levant according to you not closer to Egypt than Nubia? How exactly does this work Birdbrain? How have you patched up this hole in your theory, in order to not have to look at the most logical conclusion?
you didn't get the sarcasm?
Birdbrain Sarcasm or not You're still left with the fact south-west Asians, from what is gathered so far, were cold adapted. You're still left that predynastic lower Egypt wasn't. You sarcasm only makes a mockery out of you.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: naturally, they had to adapt to the freezing cold Levant termperatures
Uh huh Is that why you attempt to use these same ''naturally cold adapted'' limb proportions to revise your AE Mulatta theory?
Was the Levant according to you not closer to Egypt than Nubia? How exactly does this work Birdbrain? How have you patched up this hole in your theory, in order to not have to look at the most logical conclusion?
you didn't get the sarcasm?
Birdbrain Sarcasm or not You're still left with the fact south-west Asians, from what is gathered so far, were cold adapted. You're still left that predynastic lower Egypt wasn't. You sarcasm only makes a mockery out of you.
The Levant is not South West Asia.
That the Egyptians were Indian is john's trip. I only stated there's some resemblance, lack thereof of "Negroid" features (as you quoted). As Keita pointed out and I believe people who look similar but from different geographic area do not necessarily have common ancestry, buddy
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeh, right, "sarcasm"! LOL! She was just caught again applying her signature birdbrain logic.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Yea, this isn't news, it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts.
^That didn't made sense to me.
Can you establish that the cold adapted limbs found by Trenton relate to Brace's sample that fell in between Niger congo speakers and Nubians?
Well for starters how about the way they relate is through the fact that they're both Natufian samples , secondly, can you establish that there were two different Natufian populations of the time that might warrant your query?
Something to understand here is that agricultural evidence shows in the middle east around 18kya that they were using wild grains, but they were using the seeds just as they were, while in the northeastern corner of Africa they were grinding grains and it wasn't until these Mushabaeans from Africa migrated into southwest Asia that we see grinding of grain there. Out of this migration from East Africa wherein the grinding of grains were introduced into southwest Asia is where the Natufian culture arose. Which is also most likely when derivatives of the E haplogroup and the Semetic language was introduced from Africa to SW Asia.
So in essence the Natufians arose as result of two different populations coming together, one coming from Africa and the other in southwest Asia. Therefore it wouldn't be illogical to believe they are less tropically adapted while still exhibiting cranio-facial characteristics clustering with Niger-Congo samples.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: What in my quote exactly caused your confusion?
How about...
Natafians who fall in between the Niger Congo speaking sample and Nubians, but who have been admixed to the point have having predominantly Eurasian lineages.---Kalonji
^^Does this have anything to do with what I posted?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"buddy"?. Thought you were a HE. Damn! And I thought I was in there.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Natufians were thought to have been composed of two separate populations both evidently African affiliated. The Kebaran (originally epi-Gravettian people)which has always been said to have been related to Upper Paleolithic Northern Africans -like Mechta Afalou of Egypt and Maghereb or Jebel Sahaba of Nubia, etc and the Mushabians who came in from Africa later and were the gracile type described by Garrod at Shukbah as "Negroid" with attenuated limbs.
The resulting "Natufians" have been described as homogeneous by Francois Ricaut. Brace refers to them as robust.
Apparently both populations coming to make up the Natufian one were African looking people but the question is which one was originally of Central and West African affiliation as opposed to east African affiliation.
Another possibility is that the latter as well as later Levant and Ubaid Mesopotamians (previous to the Chalcolithic when lateral-headed brachycephals enter in small numbers) in fact were derived from the Natufians themselves.
It might explain what is to account for the great prognathism and rather platyyrhine noses of many of the later Ubaid people of Mesopotamia (Eridu) Arabia etc.
There is something missing or enigmatic in the descriptions of Natufians that needs to be delineated more clearly.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Well for starters how about the way they relate is through the fact that they're both Natufian samples [Eek!]
I'll assume this wasn't a strawman and that you misunderstood the question. I didn't ask HOW they were related, I asked what the basis was for generalised nature the following statement:
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts.
And whether the inconsistent results of cranial/post cranial meassurements could not have been the result of the use of different samples. And that, had the same samples been used, we might have had different results.
MOM, first you ask:
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: secondly, can you establish that there were two different Natufian populations of the time that might warrant your query?
Only to come to the conclusion that:
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: The point here is that the Natufians arose as result of two different populations coming together one coming from Africa and the other in southwest Asia.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: naturally, they had to adapt to the freezing cold Levant termperatures
Uh huh Is that why you attempt to use these same ''naturally cold adapted'' limb proportions to revise your AE Mulatta theory?
Was the Levant according to you not closer to Egypt than Nubia? How exactly does this work Birdbrain? How have you patched up this hole in your theory, in order to not have to look at the most logical conclusion?
you didn't get the sarcasm?
Just call her Birdbrain of the morning, Birdbrain Just touch my cheek before you leave me, baby Just call her Birdbrain of the morning, Birdbrain Then slowly turn away from me
^^^^^^^ Lyin'ass Carcass after Kolangi is done with her BirdBrain spams..
Just call her Birdbrain.com..LMAO
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: secondly, can you establish that there were two different Natufian populations of the time that might warrant your query?
Only to come to the conclusion that:
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: The point here is that the Natufians arose as result of two different populations coming together one coming from Africa and the other in southwest Asia.
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Well for starters how about the way they relate is through the fact that they're both Natufian samples [Eek!]
I'll assume this wasn't a strawman and that you misunderstood the question. I didn't ask HOW they were related, I asked what the basis was for generalised nature the following statement:
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts.
Well Kalonji I made the statement going by the fact the Natufians are Natufians, so when anthropologists remark on the Natufians it is what it is, they're talking about that one specific population. I don't think of another population of Natufians that might be considered. Do you?
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: And whether the inconsistent results of cranial/post cranial meassurements could not have been the result of the use of different samples. And that, had the same samples been used, we might have had different results.
Well, it "could" be anything, if you can find evidence for it, I'll take a look. But my point is that what needs to be understood as mentioned is that Natufians arose as a consequnce of two populations coming together, so in essence there might be some Natufians who resemble more the Mushabaens from Africa, and some who resemble more those who were in southwest Asia, or even a combination of the two. Hence the Niger Congo cranio-facial characteristics with more cold adapted limbs is not illogical for a population that arose out of two different ones (populations).
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: MOM, first you ask:
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: secondly, can you establish that there were two different Natufian populations of the time that might warrant your query?
Only to come to the conclusion that:
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: The point here is that the Natufians arose as result of two different populations coming together one coming from Africa and the other in southwest Asia.
Yes Kalonji, that is what I asked, can you establish that when anthropologists discuss the Natufians that there might be other Natufians that they are analyzing or not?
The point of me asking that question was in response to a query of yours which made no sense, I.e,
Can you establish that the cold adapted limbs found by Trenton relate to Brace's sample that fell in between Niger congo speakers and Nubians--Kalnoji
Wherein my response being yea, of course it can be established, since they're both Natufian samples, that's how Brace's sample relates to Trenton's. Natufians are Natufians.
Yes there were two different populations who originally came together to form the Natufian culture, but there was only one Natufian culture, get it? So basically when anthropologists speak on Natufians I take it as this new population which arose in southwest Asia.
Ex. Three different populations came together and formed the modern Puerto Rican population, but there is only one Puerto Rican population, just as two populations came to form the Natufians but there were only one Natufian population, get it?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: The Natufians were thought to have been composed of two separate populations both evidently African affiliated. The Kebaran (originally epi-Gravettian people)which has always been said to have been related to Upper Paleolithic Northern Africans -like Mechta Afalou of Egypt and Maghereb or Jebel Sahaba of Nubia, etc and the Mushabians who came in from Africa later and were the gracile type described by Garrod at Shukbah as "Negroid" with attenuated limbs.
The resulting "Natufians" have been described as homogeneous by Francois Ricaut. Brace refers to them as robust.
Apparently both populations coming to make up the Natufian one were African looking people but the question is which one was originally of Central and West African affiliation as opposed to east African affiliation.
Another possibility is that the latter as well as later Levant and Ubaid Mesopotamians (previous to the Chalcolithic when lateral-headed brachycephals enter in small numbers) in fact were derived from the Natufians themselves.
It might explain what is to account for the great prognathism and rather platyyrhine noses of many of the later Ubaid people of Mesopotamia (Eridu) Arabia etc.
There is something missing or enigmatic in the descriptions of Natufians that needs to be delineated more clearly.
Although I am in disagreement about your assertion that the African nature of certain Natufians remains was derived from west and/or central Africans, I would definitely appreciate a direct quote where Garrod said:
and were the gracile type described by Garrod at Shukbah as "Negroid" with attenuated limbs.
And where Brace said:
Brace refers to them as robust.Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Well Kalonji I made the statement going by the fact the Natufians are Natufians, so when anthropologists remark on the Natufians it is what it is, they're talking about that one specific population. I don't think of another population of Natufians that might be considered. Do you?
I take Natufian to refer to a group of people that had a common set of cultural features, and who lived in a designated time frame. I do think there were several/seperate entities involved. Besides the African one that moved in, if we look at the sheer wide spreadedness of Natufian culture, it makes it impossible that we’re dealing with one large west Asian hunter gatherer group.
To get back to the discussion, I think that the Natufian sample that resembled modern Niger-Congo speakers couldn’t possibly have spread all over the Levant. And that, unless corroborated that Trenton was using the same data set, short limbs in ‘’Natufian’’ remains should not be automatically extended over Brace’s, Angels, and Keith’s samples.
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Well, it "could" be anything, if you can find evidence for it, I'll take a look. But my point is that what needs to be understood as mentioned is that Natufians arose as a consequnce of two populations coming together
Can you substantiate that? What I understand, is that Natufian culture predates the migration of African immigrants.
One can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters.. - Larry Angel (1972)
^This is exactly why it makes no sense to extend Trentons short limbed Natufians to Brace’s sample, and to any other sample that sported African features for that matter.
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Yes Kalonji, that is what I asked, can you establish that when anthropologists discuss the Natufians that there might be other Natufians that they are analyzing or not?
This is nothing new MOM. Note the above Angel quote. Also, Natufian culture reached as far as Mesopotamia and Greece.
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Wherein my response being yea, of course it can be established, since they're both Natufian samples, that's how Brace's sample relates to Trenton's. Natufians are Natufians.
C’mon MOM, you slipped and made a mistake by generalising, this is normal. Don’t act like you don’t know better than to assume that because one sample must have a certain set of features, the other must show it too just because they appear in the same region and practiced the same culture.
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Yes there were two different populations who originally came together to form the Natufian culture, but there was only one Natufian culture, get it?
Again, this is your burden to prove, since I have never read that. What I do know is that Africans contributed to the Natufian culture, but that doesn’t mean both their cultures merged to originate it.
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Ex. Three different populations came together and formed the modern Puerto Rican population, but there is only one Puerto Rican population, just as two populations came to form the Natufians but there were only one Natufian population, get it?
Yes, but still inside PR, there are ethnic groups that differ significantly. What goes morphologically for the people of one village/city doesn’t automatically ring true for another. Fat Joe, Kirk Acevedo, Tru life, Zoe Saldana (girl from Avatar), Meagan Good, Jim Jones and JLO clearly differ in features. This is even more the case when you’re dealing with a region the size of the Levant.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I agree with Kalonji. 'Natufian' is the name of a culture not a physical population, let alone a certain set of phenotypic traits. I even remember Rasol explaining to me that the discovery of so-called "negroid" features among Natufian remains was what distinguished them from remains of other cultures in the area contemporary to them. That the majority of other cultures had "caucasoid" traits only suggests the point made by Christopher Ehret that the Natufians may represent a small group of Africans who emigrate into an area of predominantly non-African peoples.
The question are: To what samples did Holliday declare to have cold-adapted traits? Which Natufian samples do exhibit tropically adapted traits? And last, are there any skeletons that show intermediate traits like with what can be seen in remains of northern India??
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Well Kalonji I made the statement going by the fact the Natufians are Natufians, so when anthropologists remark on the Natufians it is what it is, they're talking about that one specific population. I don't think of another population of Natufians that might be considered. Do you?
I take Natufian to refer to a group of people that had a common set of cultural features, and who lived in a designated time frame.
Yea, this is my point.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I do think there were several/seperate entities involved. Besides the African one that moved in, if we look at the sheer wide spreadedness of Natufian culture, it makes it impossible that we’re dealing with one large west Asian hunter gatherer group.
There are reportedly two populations who came together, this is noted archaeologically, linguistically, genetically and agriculturally. As noted by me here;
Something to understand here is that agricultural evidence shows in the middle east around 18kya that they were using wild grains, but they were using the seeds just as they were, while in the northeastern corner of Africa they were already grinding grains, and it wasn't until these Mushabaeans from Africa migrated into southwest Asia that we see grinding of grain there (in southwest Asia). Out of this migration from East Africa wherein the grinding of grains were introduced into southwest Asia is where the Natufian culture arose. Which is also most likely when derivatives of the E haplogroup and the Semetic language was introduced from Africa to SW Asia.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: To get back to the discussion, I think that the Natufian sample that resembled modern Niger-Congo speakers couldn’t possibly have spread all over the Levant. And that, unless corroborated that Trenton was using the same data set, short limbs in ‘’Natufian’’ remains should not be automatically extended over Brace’s, Angels, and Keith’s samples.
Well in my opinion, since its noted that Natufians arose as a result of admxiture between Africans moving in on southwest Asians these different cranio-facial features and limb proportions are not illogical. They were a mixed population hence a high possibility of different features.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Well, it "could" be anything, if you can find evidence for it, I'll take a look. But my point is that what needs to be understood as mentioned is that Natufians arose as a consequnce of two populations coming together
Can you substantiate that? What I understand, is that Natufian culture predates the migration of African immigrants.
Where do you get your information from? From what I've read there were migrations of Africans into southwest Asia in the early Mesolithic and late Mesolithic/early Neolithic.
According to D 'Agostino, 2006, p. 2 tells us that E's expansion into the Southern Levant may be connected to the appearance of the Natufian Culture. Also according to C. Ehret who notes; the agricultural and linguistic evidence for a movement from Africa into southwest Asia wherein the Natufian culture then appears.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: One can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters.. - Larry Angel (1972) ^This is exactly why it makes no sense to extend Trentons short limbed Natufians to Brace’s sample, and to any other sample that sported African features for that matter.
Of course it makes sense, since as explained and you agree yourself, Natufians were a group with common set of cultural features, and who lived in a designated time frame. Hence when anthropologists speak on Natufians its this population with this set of common cultural characteristics from the same time frame.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Yes Kalonji, that is what I asked, can you establish that when anthropologists discuss the Natufians that there might be other Natufians that they are analyzing or not?
This is nothing new MOM. Note the above Angel quote. Natufian culture reached as far as Mesopotamia and Greece.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Wherein my response being yea, of course it can be established, since they're both Natufian samples, that's how Brace's sample relates to Trenton's. Natufians are Natufians.
C’mon MOM, you slipped and made a mistake by generalising, this is normal.
No Kalonji, I made it clear that Natufians are Natufians and they were a result of Africans moving in on southwest Asians. This in itself should tell you that there would be conflicting cranio-facial and limb proportions in the Natufian population.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Don’t act like you don’t know better than to assume that because one sample must have a certain set of features, the other must show it too.
I didn't, in fact I noted that its logical to assume that they had different features all around the Natufian population, some Natufians who resemble more the Mushabaens from Africa, and some who resemble more those who were in southwest Asia, or even a combination of the two.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Yes there were two different populations who originally came together to form the Natufian culture, but there was only one Natufian culture, get it?
Again, this is your burden to prove, since I have never read that. What I do know is that Africans contributed to the Natufian culture, but that doesn’t mean both their cultures merged to originate it.
The Natufian culture didnt appear until after Africans migrated into the Levant during the Mesolithic, wherein the linguistic, agricultural, genetic evidence corroborates.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Ex. Three different populations came together and formed the modern Puerto Rican population, but there is only one Puerto Rican population, just as two populations came to form the Natufians but there were only one Natufian population, get it?
Yes, but still inside PR, there are ethnic groups that differ significantly. What goes morphologically for the people of one village/city doesn’t automatically ring true for another. Fat Joe, Kirk Acevedo, Tru life, Zoe Saldana (girl from Avatar), Meagan Good, Jim Jones and JLO clearly differ in features. This is even more the case when you’re dealing with a region the size of the Levant.
Point is they're all Puerto Ricans regardless of how they look, just as Natufians were Natufians regardless of how they looked, and that different populations came together to form these new populations, hence conflicting features are not illogical when noted with Brace and Trenton.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I agree with Kalonji. 'Natufian' is the name of a culture not a physical population,
Theye were a population who shared cultural characteristics, of course they were a physical population which according to all evidence arose as a result of Africans moving into the Levant during the Mesolithic.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: let alone a certain set of phenotypic traits. I even remember Rasol explaining to me that the discovery of so-called "negroid" features among Natufian remains was what distinguished them from remains of other cultures in the area contemporary to them.
This post makes no sense, how can you say "let alone a certain set of phenotypic traits" and then go on to say that they were distinguished due to a certain set of traits?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: That the majority of other cultures had "caucasoid" traits only suggests the point made by Christopher Ehret that the Natufians may represent a small group of Africans who emigrate into an area of predominantly non-African peoples.
Chris Ehret notes that Natufians arose as a result of Mushabaens moving in on southwest Asians.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The question are: To what samples did Holliday declare to have cold-adapted traits? Which Natufian samples do exhibit tropically adapted traits?
Doesnt matter since they were all considered Natufians and conflicting characteristics are not illogical to believe in a mixed population.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: And last, are there any skeletons that show intermediate traits like with what can be seen in remains of northern India??
Not sure.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: let alone a certain set of phenotypic traits. I even remember Rasol explaining to me that the discovery of so-called "negroid" features among Natufian remains was what distinguished them from remains of other cultures in the area contemporary to them.
This post makes no sense, how can you say "let alone a certain set of phenotypic traits" and then go on to say that they were distinguished due to a certain set of traits
Mary Mary. Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
It's commonly claimed on this forum that the Natufians of Mesolithic Southwest Asia were a black people of African descent. I don't doubt that they may have had African ancestry, but this paper by Trenton Holliday reports that, while the first modern humans to migrate to Southwest Asia from Africa were tropically adapted, their Natufian descendants became cold-adapted. From the paper:
quote:Natufians also exhibit a somewhat cold-adapted physique, albeit not as extreme as the Neandertals.
This challenges the belief that the Natufians were black, for if these people were really tropically adapted like blacks, why don't their limb proportions show it?
*For what it's worth, data referenced by Hershkovitz et al. 1995 puts the brachial index means of the non-Hayonim Natufian samples at 77% and that of Hayonim Natufian samples in the range of 75-78. Apparently, the non-Hayonim collection of Natufian samples report a mean that is greater than that observed for either recent Europeans or Neanderthals. The Hayonim Natufian collection on the other hand is more varied, displaying means that range from those similar to recent Europeans to those similar to tropical African means. No data was given on the crural means. My educated guess is that Natufians are generally likely to display intermediate patterns of limb-proportions between that of tropical African means and those of recent Europeans, and not simplistic as the claim being attributed to Holliday, about Natufians being "cold-adapted". There is nothing particularly cold about the Levant. However, mixed ranges of limb-proportions may reflect biological contributions from groups ultimately originating from differing geographical locations from that of the Levant.
*Natufian samples have been collected from several different sites namely: Hayonim cave, Kebara, El-Wad, Shukba, Eynan, and Nahal Oren. They are noticeably varied in their morphological manifestations; see for example...
The Natufian poplations sampled in the skeletal assemblages from Hayonim Cave, Kebara, El-Wad, Shukba, Nahal Oren, and Eynan display a significant range of variability in both morphology and size (Table 1; see also Arensburg et al., 1975; Belfer-Cohen et al., 1992; Ladiray and Soliveres-Massei, 1988). To speak about a “Natufian cranial morphotype” is thus simplistic and potentially misleading, although some generalizations can be made. The similarities between Ohalo I1 H2 and the sample of Natufian males is strongest in the configuration of the facial skeleton (e.g., nasal and orbital size, height and breadth of the upper face), while strong differences may be seen in the calvaria. - Hershkovitz et al. 1995
The link provided by Truthcentric mentions nothing about the Natufians to my knowledge. As for the other citation provided without specified context, what indexes is the reader told about - brachial?, crural?, body linearity?, femoral head diameter?, etc. What specific Natufian samples were under study; are there noticeable variations across samples from different sites; is there a dominating trend within one sample vs. that of another sample from a different site, etc? I think these are obvious, if not fair questions to ask, so as to get a firm grip on from what angle the author (in this case Holliday) is arriving at his/her conclusion(s).
*Furthermore, there is a bias in the correlative value of limb proportion means. For instance, in all likelihood, tropical body plans are accommodated by considerable eumelanin concentration in the skin, due to the solar radiation intensity of tropical regions. Shorter limb proportions on the other hand, don't correlate as well with possible skin melanin concentration. Think for example, that KhoiSan groups are considerably darker than Europeans, but "sub-tropical" limb proportions have been reported among them. Likewise, although light in tone, the Inuit are still noticeably darker than western Europeans, while displaying fairly small indexes for their limb proportions. So, "cold-adapted" must not be mistaken to mean "white".
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Compared with the continent of Africa, from the prehistoric standpoint, Asia is archaeologically little known. So far, excavations have revealed implements of Mesolithic technique in Kurdistan and in Palestine, 8 but only from the latter have Mesolithic skeletons been recovered. Here an Aurignacian culture lasted during the entire Late Pleistocene, and directly preceded the Mesolithic. Since Miss Garrod feels that this region was one of the main areas of differentiation of the Aurignacian cultural technique, it is very unfortunate that not a single Aurignacian skull has been pub- lished. Therefore, the very important question of the Late Pleistocene re- lationships of this key area must remain unsettled.
For the following period, however, at least two hundred skeletons have been exhumed from two different Mesolithic levels and from five or more sites. So far, only two of these skeletons have been published, one from each level. Great doubt is current at the moment concerning the exact nature of the physical types of this people, and we must await detailed publications in the near future before this matter may be settled. 9
These Palestinians, who have been given the name Natufians, appar- ently differed in physical type from period to period. One of the two skele- tons which has been published is that of an adult female from the earliest level at a site called Erg el Ahmar. 10
The skull of this woman is large, robust, and thick- walled; it is purely dolichocephalic, and has an elevated cranial vault in which the height almost equals the breadth. The forehead, as with females of many races, is broad, straight, and rounded. The* face, likewise, is broad, and of medium height; the nasal root, somewhat depressed, is hidden under browridges massive for a female, while the nasal bones project far forward, to form an accentuated profile.
The low, broad orbits of this specimen assume the rectangular form characteristic among most of the Upper Palaeolithic skulls from Europe and North Africa, while the orbital index is correspondingly low. The
8 Garrod, Miss D. A. E., BASF, No. 6, 1930, pp. 8-43.
9 Mr. T. D. McCown was, at the time of writing, engaged in working over a large col- lection of these skeletons under the direction of Sir Arthur Keith and intends to publish it shortly.
10 Vallois, Henri, V., Anth, vol. 46, 1936, pp. 529-543.
62 THE RACES OF EUROPE
nose is high, narrow, and metrically leptorrhine; the nasal spine promi- nent, and the lower border of the piriform opening strongly crested. The mandible, of medium robust icity, possesses a prominent chin. The rugged beauty of this Natufian woman was, however, somewhat diminished by an abnormality of dental occlusion, for her lower incisors overlap the upper ones.
Morphologically, this skull is perfectly European and belongs without question to the general Upper Palaeolithic type. It would also fit metri- cally into the female range for this group. It would, however, fit equally well into the North African series of Afalou bou Rummel, except that it is somewhat narrower nosed than the females of that group as known at present. 11 In the absence of data on Palestinian Aurignacian crania, one may suppose that the Aurignacian Upper Palaeolithic Neanderthal- sapiens hybrid developed in this neighborhood from Skhul-like beginnings, and that this Erg el Ahmar female is a survival of it.
The skulls from the later Natufian period, while exceedingly numerous, remain dubiously classified because of several conflicting ideas about them which have been published. Sir Arthur Keith 12 in a preliminary report on the remains from Shuqbah and Kebara, states that the later Natufianswere short people, the males having a mean stature of 160 cm. and the females of 152 cm. The tallest male in the group was only 165 cm. in height. The hands and feet of these later Natufians were remarkably small, and their long bones were in no sense massive.
The skulls which Keith describes are of a peculiarly Mediterranean type, with a cephalic index ranging from 72 to 78, thus rivalling the sub- dolichocephalic head form of short statured Mediterraneans living today. The brain cases are of medium size, and the faces absolutely small. The lower jaws are also small and weakly developed, with little chin promi- nence and a prevalence of alveolar prognathism. The wide, low- vaulted nose, in combination with prognathism, gives a somewhat negroid cast to the face. The browridges are smooth, and the whole system of muscular- ity in the male but slightly developed. These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities. 13 There was, apparently, a change of race during the Natufian. These small Mediter- raneans must have brought their microliths from some point farther south or east, impelled by changes of climate.
11 Some of the Mugharet el Wad crania, which belong to the earlier horizon, seem likewise to resemble those of the Upper Pleistocene. This comparison represents, how- ever, a preliminary impression, and is stated only with reservations. Personal com- munication by Mr. T. D. McCown.
** Keith, Sir A., New Discoveries, pp. 202-214; PICP, 1932, pp. 46-47.
13 This impression is also confirmed by the French school.
Boule, Vallois, and Verneau, Les Grottes Palaeolithiques de Bent Seghoual, pp. 212-214.
Lets now take a look at where Trenton got his samples from:
Natufian skeletons from the southern Levantine sites of El Wad and Kebara. Univariate analyses distinguish Jebel Sahaba from European and circumpolar samples, but do not tend to segregate them from North or Sub-Saharan African samples.
Trenton: ** Natufian skeletons from the southern Levantine sites of El Wad and Kebara. **
Mr. T. D. McCown: **Some of the Mugharet el Wad crania, which belong to the earlier horizon**
We can see that Trenton got one set of skeletons (El Wad) from the same area as those described by Mr. T. D. McCown above. If the (El Wad) material from both authors is the same, and it most likely is, we can disqualify Trenton’s Natufians from having anything to do with the later ones described by Brace, Keith and Angel. His other data set of skeletons (Kebara) seems to be where the name of the pre-Natufian culture was derived from. I think that says enough.
If my sources are correct, the ‘’Negroid’’ crania described by Angel, Brace and Keith belonged to later migrants into the culture, that brought their own cultural input to the table but didn’t co-originate Natufian culture.
Furthermore, the data used by Trenton hardly contradicts an African origin for the Natufians described by Brace, Keita and Angel.
Unless MOM has anything to add I think the case is closed
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
, secondly, can you establish that there were two different Natufian populations of the time that might warrant your query? 
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic